How are you gonna stop “the rich” from simply taking all of their digitally stored wealth and leaving the country that taxes them?
Their wealth is digitally stored, but their business isn’t. A car dealership or a Walmart are physical things that they can’t take with them unless they close up shop entirely and miss out on the revenue, and those are taxed too.
We live longer and longer, retirement age is something that needs to be adjusted with the human lifespan.
Should it? We live longer and longer, but we’re also more and more productive. 50 years ago, for example, the national labor force produced enough for them and (almost) everyone else to retire after about 40 years of labor. Certainly lifespans have increased, but have they increased more than the productivity of the national labor force? I doubt it. Productivity has definitely increased enough to make up the difference in lifespans, especially since most women now work, meaning essentially double the number of workers. In that case, should we not spend the extra time (which we have earned with our own labor) with our families and friends rather than sacrifice it to some rich prick whose only contribution to society is a portfolio? There’s something distinctly dystopian about the idea that living longer means we should dedicate our time to enriching the already filthy rich rather than enjoy life.
The homeless are the permanent underclass of capitalism.
Don’t some countries effectively have zero homelessness, though? I’m thinking of Finland, but I think there were more.
Brain drain from an institution that only does evil is a good thing, yes.
Oh that’s what you meant. In that case I see what you mean, but I’m not convinced. First, doing such a thing would destroy their own seat of power, as most revolts tend to start in the capital or reach it pretty quickly. Second, it would immediately spark a coup, civil war or intensify the revolution, for the same reason Assad’s gassing didn’t stop the Syrian revolution. The level of destruction a nuke can cause can be more or less replicated using conventional means, using a nuke means dealing with nuclear fallout which even the most maniacal governments wouldn’t put themselves through and using drastic violence tends to push people towards militancy rather than compliance. Third, it’d destroy their international legitimacy, give Western countries an excuse for drastic intervention and discourage their allies from helping them defend against such an intervention. Iran’s government is certainly evil, but they’re rationally evil, and nuking one’s own people is very much not rational.
They would if it was only their moral integrity stopping them, but they wouldn’t because doing such a thing would destroy their international standing and immediately start a regional war with generous Western involvement if not outright belligerency. In other words: They wouldn’t use a nuke against a regional adversary for the same reason North Korea hasn’t nuked South Korea. There’s a limit to how far you can push nukes and, counterintuitively, actually using them goes beyond that limit. If anything, it’s countries with actual muscle like China, US and its allies and to a lesser extent Russia that could actually use a nuke and (comparatively) get away with it.
When you let Trump off the hook for genocide
So… Never?
Iran denies the ceasefire but said they wouldn’t attack if Israel stops attacking, so in effect the ball is in Israel’s court.
What part of my comment do you take as defending Trump or China? I hate both of them, but I also hate Dem hypocrisy. Do I need to add a footnote saying fuck Trump and fuck Xi whenever I want to criticize Democrats?
even with large incentives to do so,
What large incentives? Obviously talking about Iran here.
Iran isn’t good, but the kind of bad it does isn’t the kind nukes would have an impact on. Meanwhile a nuclear armed Iran wouldn’t be bombed by Israel year in and year out.
Wow, the fucking hypocrisy. Everyone is pointing out the genocide, which is fair enough, but more relevantly the Yemen bombing campaign is pretty much exactly what Trump is doing, only Biden had the sense not to call it a war.
“Now’s not the time” is how they got Bernie.
Didn’t Newsom veto one of these before? There’s a reason this stuff is implemented using citizens’ initiatives.
True, but that doesn’t excuse Bobby shooting up brown people in the Middle East. Joining the military and being surprised when you’re deployed to fight wars is pure FAFO.
Isn’t that more than a year away? If Netanyahu and his stooges have their way there won’t be an Iran by then.
Unfortunately, innocent people will be the ones on the front lines, like always.
If you willingly go to shoot up brown people halfway across the world, how innocent can you really be?
common sense isn’t always available when conservative is ruling.
It wasn’t when liberals were ruling either (see: Gulf of Aden). This is an imperialism thing, not a conservative thing (though conservatives are worse about it).
I agree; I just wanted to push back against the idea that American soldiers who go invade countries halfway across the world for oil and genocide are innocent. Victims yes, but not innocent. Glorification and whitewashing of the military is part of how America got here.